PLEDGE TO AMERICA
Comments:Criticize public figures regarding their public work only when you have backings in the form of solid citations, quotes or proofs from authority sources. Don’t attack a private citizen by name. Refrain from criticizing an identifiable person repeatedly. Refrain from making false statements about any one. If someone has broken these rules, call it to our attention immediately.

This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Did somebody say that Big Brother was watching? No problem, Commissioner Deal and his regime labeled us as "ultra extremist" in an email that they circulated to all Democrats so we are probably already on the list.

Yes idiot, the recession has everything to do with it. This jerk that was going to cut the deficit in half during his first term has driven this country so far in the hole it will take years to get us out if we ever do get out.

Those spending categories are recession-specific. No recession equals none of that spending. So taking away the recession-specific spending, Obama’s federal spending was actually less than the 2008 level. And if you continue to take away $794 in wartime defense spending, the 2009 spending level was at 2002 levels.

Wow! If you are not spending your capital on capital investment, you will show a short term increase in profit. Why? you ask... look it up.

If you didn't hire anyone for an 18 month period, then you hired two in the next 18 month period, your hiring is up 200%. If the 18 months prior to not hiring anyone, you laid off 4, you are really down -200%... keep HOPE-ing for good news Jack... it just isn't there.

Jack- If you took in $1,000,000 and out of that $1,000,000 you didn't make any capital investments because you were unsure of the future, your profit picture would be higher than if you SPENT $150,000 out of that $1,000,000 revenue on new equipment for growth in production. Also, if you cut back employees your profit picture would look better for the short run because you have less employee expense.All of your "help me save Obama from being a total 0" points are bogus.

It is not expense if you didn't spend it... no one said (except for maybe you and Obama) that "not spending capital" is revenue. Think about it. Big money in the bank does make some money... profit. It is also not at risk.

Jack- You and Obama know nothing about business. He would have done better staying in Chicago hob-knobing with racist preachers and known terrorists and organizing like-minded people. You should stick to putting band-aids on bobos.

Again, you have some difficulty with (not so) abstract concepts. If companies are not investing, then they are sitting on their cash. That means costs remain constant. And as you saw (P=TR-TC), that means revenues must rise in order to explain increased profits. Even if you counted lack of investment as a decrease in costs, it would be a one-time, short-term adjustment. We've seen, however, quarter after quarter of increased corporate profits. Not short-term.

And we're seeing increased profits in conjuction with private-sector job growth. So lower employment can't explain a longer-term increase in profits. Yes, some companies are still reducing their labor force, but overall the corporate world is seeing job growth. And higher profits.

"And as you saw (P=TR-TC), that means revenues must rise in order to explain increased profits".-Jack

You are just going to have to trust me on this one Jack. If a company cuts its costs (employment and capital investment) which is paid out of the profit, they have more short term profit to show because they didn't spend their profit on employment and capital investment. It is not a good thing.Your formula says the same thing, its just that Obama stopped short and your head went into the dark and you can't see it.

"If a company cuts its costs (employment and capital investment) which is paid out of the profit, they have more short term profit to show because they didn't spend their profit on employment and capital investment."

Right! Okay, now stay with me.....there's been job growth, so they're spending revenues on employment. And the increased profits haven't been short-term.

Sark I think your beating a dead horse here. Jack can never understand simple economics. His whole idea of profit is to take capital from those that earn it to give to the government to distribute to those that don't.

Debating Jack is like arguing with the dolt, primarily because jack is probably one of the three tree people that post as Liberalproverbs18a;2. In both persona, he thinks repeating idiocy and the big lie will make people believe him.

Jack- I have had years where my revenue increased and my profit stayed the same. I have had years where my revenue went down and my profit increased. I have had years where my revenue went up and my profit went down.

You have to look at the economy in general. If the employment rate is rising, you may be looking at hirings to replace people who are retiring or had been laid-off previously. To say employment (in general) is growing, is not accurate. Even most cities, states and counties are only replacing people, at least the ones without hiring freezes. This is not to say there is NO hiring going on in certain sectors. But overall, if you believe it is "growth" with the real unemployment as high as it is, you can believe it if you want, I don't.

Jack, usually people lie by opening their mouths. You do it by using a keyboard. Sark has exposed your lies so I have no need to, just as many people exposed your lies the last time I made mention of it. You just refuse to admit the truth and keep on denying reality like a little lying Energizer Bunny. Your are so cute when you do that.

Jack wrote-"If companies are not investing, then they are sitting on their cash. That means costs remain constant."

Also not true. Not even close. You would have no way of knowing how many things are "costs" in business. Insurance, rent, utilities, gasoline, diesel, motor pool repairs, employee theft, employee mistakes, lawsuits, taxes, collection of delinquent accounts, wholesale cost increases, refunds, warranty work, etc. All known as costs. Most of those things are not controlled by how much money the business is holding on to. GIG is right, you are a beaten dead horse.

Guy, you claim I lie "by using a keyboard", yet you make no attempt to say what I'm supposedly lying about. Nice. You're cute too.

Sark, I really don't understand your utter lack of economic knowledge, unless you're simply looking for an argument. Corporate revenues are up and have been steadily increasing. Consumer spending is up. Nothing you can argue there.

Jack- Here's one you could of used, just leave out the last part of it.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of Americans who bought previously occupied homes rose in August. But the sales were driven by an increase in foreclosures, a sign that home prices could fall further next year and slow a housing recovery."

Speaking of that, Bill Clinton threw Obama's new "bill" under the bus. It will be interesting to see how Clinton tries to slither out from underneath as he moves to take over for Jimmy Carter as "The Former President not capable of keeping his mouth shut" OR is it the beginning of the primary run against Zero?